Layton reacts to Ignatieff's shots about him

I like it.  And it's about time, too.

If the NDP leaves the leadership battle to the Libs and the Cons then the election will be between those two parties.  And as the NDP moves up in the polls in Quebec, perhaps the folks there are looking for an alternative to the red or the blue.

I got one of those too.  I note that my riding of Oshawa is one of the two specifically mentioned.  The candidate is Chris Buckley, president of our CAW local 222.  A fine choice IMHO. I'm looking forward to an exciting campaign.

It seems Layton's analysis is that Ignatieff made a mistake in venturing that kind of attack, and he is looking to expand on the opening, particularly in light of Chantal Hébert's column this morning, and the interpretation senior pundits are signalling they will attach to any Liberal loss in Vaughan.

I did like the tiny shot: "as an ACTUAL small business owner".  That dreck on the Liberal video about Ignatieff saying he was a small-businessman living paycheck to paycheck was laughable.  I realize the Liberals like that video of him, but there are too many g's being dropped and "ya"s instead of "you"s for it to seem realistic to me.  It's just another phony-baloney re-selling of Iggy as every-man, and it doesn't work.

Apparently Iggy also told the open-mike forum in Guelph that he never votes on private members bills, when responding to questions about his absence for the vote on Gerard Kennedy's bill on war resisters.  Slight problem: he's voted on PMBs tons of times in the past, including the one on the long-gun registry.

After two years as leader, Iggy's still winging it and making things up, and Layton is signalling that while his own focus is on defeating Harper, he's not going to let Iggy get away with that, and is going to move to take advantage of the openings Iggy gives him by doing so.

After seeing him say that he is "incredibly proud" of his accomplishments, twice, I quit reading

Why?  You expect him to say that he is not proud of his accomplishments?  He may well not have done what you want him to do, but he is making a political speech in response to an attack on his other flank.  What would you expect him to say?

Jack Layton is standing up for Canadians.

Michael Ignatieff is . . . down for the Count.

They're two wings of the same party, Jack. FPTP elections are a game for rich people to decide the winners.

If Layton's aim (as he says) is to defeat the Harper government, then why did he say nothing about Harper other than: tax giveaways, HST, "out-of-touch" government (whatever that means - it rated three mentions), and "wedge" politics? Are those the cardinal sins that Canadians need to reflect upon when deciding to vote against Harper?

And as for the merits of the NDP, all I could find was "revitalized, principled, fiscally responsible", and "cares about the challenges facing middle-class families".

I realize this is not a policy statement, but remind me - what exactly did he say? Other than sniping back at the puerile Ignatieff and his gang of opportunists.

Unionist, it's about positioning.  In case you haven't noticed, the media has been trying to write the NDP out of the debate for the last six weeks, and job one has been to force their way back into the dialogue, otherwise it wouldn't matter what one said because it wouldn't get through to anywhere.  Secondarily, it's also about morale amongst supporters.

There's a ton of stuff on the website, and in the daily debates of the House of Commons, so before you make a criticism based on content, please consider the whole body of work.

No, I saw your comment alright.  I believe in a compare-and-contrast piece, you try and pick issues that highlight the comparison.  It's tricky to do in a multi-party comparison.  The positioning problem is to defend against an attack from quarters that are not the main focus of your own preferred attack.  The issues selected are ones that distinguish the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals from that of the NDP, which are salient to voters who might be considering switching between those two parties, and help make the case for the NDP in that situation, while still keeping the main focus as defeating the government.

I'm assuming you mean that the NDP not the Liberals are the prime opposition to the Conservatives in much of Canada.

Not exactly right, kropotkin.  The group of people you think of as "middle class" and the people who actually think of themselves as "middle class" are probably two very different groups.  We might like the term, given our wonderful publicly-funded university education with a bunch of tenured neo-marxists.  But the fact is that what the terms means to us is very different from what it means to most other people.

If you listen closely to what people call themselves, it's rude to call them something else.  There's a real psychological difference between thinking of yourself as a "poor worker", on the one hand, and thinking of yourself as a middle class person who has been been victimized by economic choices made by Liberals and Conservatives, on the other.

If you were familiar with any of the strategies being studied and employed by the NDP, you would know that targeting non-voters is absolutely central to their approach.

Of course, this is a fundraising letter.  I guess we need to get non-voters voting at all first, then voting for us, and only then should we ask them for money, right ;-)

Here is the full sentence that seems to have touched of Kropotkin's major complaint about class reference.

"And to replace it with New Democrat leadership that cares about the challenges that middle-class families face right now."

I must have been reading too quickly because I glossed over it.

A similar statement was placed on the NDP website about 18 months ago and I called, wrote to complain about it. The NDP should not seek to represent the middle class. It ought to always include the most vulnerable in our society in its definition of who it represents if it wants my "middle class" vote. The NDP needs to remember that the "middle class" that votes NDP does not vote exclusively from self interest and is motivated by values that are not classist in this way.

Kropotkin is raising a very important and legitimate complaint about this letter and our support for the NDP as a political party should not stop us from seeing what an offensive, and frankly wrong-headed mistake that is. If I truly believed that the sentence accurately represents NDP values and directions, I would stop supporting the party. I do not believe that and will therefore treat it as a stupid communications error that I will complain about.

I did send the following message to the NDP:

"I saw this in a letter signed by Jack Layton. "The focus of New Democrats across the country remains the same. To defeat Stephen Harper's out-of-touch government. And to replace it with New Democrat leadership that cares about the challenges that middle-class families face right now."
This is a terrible statement and if I believed it I would take my "middle class" vote elsewhere.
I support the NDP because the party is concerned about those most vulnerable in society as well as the so called "middle class." The day I believe this statement signed by Layton is the direction of the NDP is the day I find another party to support (for the first time in my life).
And in the meantime the NDP should consider that NDP "middle class" voters are not inclined to like "classist" language and do not vote motivated by personal interest alone.
I will finally point out that this is not the first time as your website displayed the same kind of language defining the NDP's interest as being "middle class" and I complained then and thankfully it was removed shortly thereafter.
Fine to say we are concerned about the middle class as well something else to say that is what our concern is implying exclusively."

People have said to me in the past that I should not post such messages publicly. I do nto think that this belongs in a private way particularly at a time when we are not in an election. The party needs to know better than this. I am a strong supporter of the NDP but an even stronger advocate for those left out of this definition contained in the Layton letter's definition of priorities. Whichever communications officer is responsible for that letter, should be educated a bit more as to what the party is about before another such message is drafted.

Sorry Life etc. The middle class is not the only people who are suffering and who need attention. And not everyone sees themselves as middle class who is suffering -- not by any definition.

This is a statement of motivation for the NDP and I have seen this more than once and damn right I will try to correct it when I see it -- the party should know better.

The letter is great in many respects. But the party should never define itself as being directed at the attention of the middle class -- if they want my support.

I am in the union movement. I do not believe working people who are defined as middle class would accept the NDP to be defined as out either for our interest or middle class in general. We support a party out for social justice including for the most vulnerable in society and we understand that as bad as it may be for working people it is worse for some who are not fortunate enough to be working or who have retired. And we do not want them excluded from any definition of NDP priorities of values. Not ever.

Forgetting the most vulnerable people in a definition of priorities is not a tolerable omission. the party, in spite fo the many well-deserved compliments for this letter should catch flack for that statement. If it does not, it may one day in fact represent exactly that value. I believe I do a service to the party for reminding them what it is about as does anyone else who similarly remembers what we value.

This is for post 29

Of course- but this was a letter to people expected to maybe donate- to have such available cash suggests they are likely middle class in income.  Speaking to their concerns is not only appropriate it is proper.  No where does the letter, or myself suggest no one else is suffering.  It merely suggests that middle class people are suffering too.  That is entirely accurate. 

Forest

Trees.

Please point to where I said the word everybody or nobody

I might not call it arrogant to put words in someone else's mouth before insulting them with those words they never said but I am sure there is a word for that.

And yes, I do presume to speak generally-- if not comprehensively on this. Let's take a poll shall we? I'll bet my vote on the result. If the majority of NDP supporters here, since there are enough that I can accept them as a group, agree that the party is best represented by middle class definitions than social justice and comprehensive care for all including the most vulnerable, the ill the elderly, then I'll find another party to vote for. Does that work for you?

You know, I haven't seen it personally, but I'm told by people who have seen the opinion research on this question that those folks DO consider themselves and call themselves middle class.  I take your point, but it doesn't matter what you or I *think* they think, it matters what they actually *do* think.

If the term "middle class" does in fact target the folks you (and I would put myself in the same category) say the NDP should be defending and representing ... and you don't find much of the policies the caucus is advocating these days indicating otherwise, I don't believe -- do you have some other intrinsic opposition to the phrase "middle class", or do you just want to ensure that whatever phrase is used reaches with dignity those people we want to reach, Sean?

Hi Bella.  Just popped over to check this out after seeing the link at National Newswatch, I bet.  How are things going over at Liberal Caucus Services?  Nice of you to stop by and confirm that the Liberal talking points haven't changed once in the last four years.

By the way, Canadians voted the Liberal government out.  I know that's hard to internalize as a Liberal.  Have a nice day.

Yeah Bella if I had no principles and did not care about these issues, I'd already be a Liberal.

You are still mis-characterizing what I am saying implying I think the middle class is of a certain size or evil. You continue by suggesting that I am saying that claiming middle class people are suffering is a violation -- no, I think I am suffering frankly.

Enough of the straw men.

There are many people who do not consider they are well off enough to be called middle class. These people do not have to be great in number for us to care about them. There are over a million people in Canada who are homeless-- do you think any of them define themselves as middle class? The NDP is the only party with a tradition of not forgetting those who define themselves (in whatever definition you want) as being not well enough as the middle class. I am fighting to see this principle retained.

The idea that there can be a discussion about some people who do or do not consider themselves as middle class is a red herring -- we are not talking about this grey area of lower income working people with aspirations. The NDP was the party of working people that never defined itself as exclusively for them. The NDP used to also included those unable to work, those who could not find a job, or a home, or have good health and a young fit body capable of working. This is not some trivial definition for me. This is what always seemed to me to be the defining principle of being NDP. That we are a collective. That we care about each other. That we do not divide and define by class. That we are concerned for more than those who either self-define themselves as middle class or are defined by others as middle class.

Now please stop debating what I am not saying and debate what I am saying.

Would you like to give any cites or links to this supposed axiom. A link to a  current serious academic article would be nice [you know from one of those neo-marxist professors our universities are rife with.  All the miners I grew up with thought they were middle class and all the small business owners did as well.  

When I was growing up Tim's was a part time job for students now it a part time job period. The young people I know who are currently working at places like Tim's in my experience do not self identify as middle class so I am serious about the cites. Those young folks are also not likely to answer a pollsters survey (a:the vast majority no longer have landline's and so never get polled and b: they don't want to even if reached) so I doubt there is much relevant polling data.  

kropotkin -you must move in different circles then me.  Tim's and other such service jobs have always been jobs mostly for older workers, not students, in my neck of the woods.  Increasingly in fact they are becoming jobs for the 50 plus crowd facing impoverished circumstances as retirees or close to retirement age.   As such how they see the world and how your friends see the world are going to be very different.  I don't need a neo-marxist professor to tell me that.  Maybe this is an urban/rural thing?

Sean I don't care about you 'hurting the NDP'.  I'm not even a member -although I am donating locally to a spectacular candidate.

I am not lying.  I believe your attack is both unfounded and unjustified and called you on it.  I believe I have stated why.  If you don't like how I view your argument -maybe YOU should reflect on your communication attempts as I am simply stating how I view and interpret what you are saying.  You can't seem to handle disagreement.  The last time I checked though there was nothing in the babble rules that said I had to agree with you.

It is sad really to see you behave in this way.

You have accused me of lecturing to poor working people about what to call themsevles without any foundation-- that was one of many -- yes I call that lying.

Sean you are obviously just looking for a fight.  I am not sure why.  You are arguing about things not being said.  It simply isn't worth the blood pressure medication.

I find myself leaning towards krop and Sean on this one. The reason we talk so much about the "middle class" is because the "middle class" lifestyle is held up as something to aspire to. As this discussion shows, the term is problematic because it means different things to different people. My personal problem with the term is that when I think of "middle class," I think of someone graduating high school, going to university/college and maybe doing some travelling, then getting married, having children, and buying a house in the suburbs with 2 cars and maybe even later buying some cars for the kids. That certainly does not reflect my reality or aspirations, it does not reflect the reality or aspirations of people I've met since I moved to Winnipeg, and I'm certain that it does not reflect the reality or aspirations of a majority of people. Frankly, the "middle class" to me is an illusion, and it boggles my mind that, for example, having a family is held up as the norm when demographic studies will tell you that the number of single people in society is unprecedented, or that people are waiting a long time to have children, if at all. It's for that reason that language around "middle class" or "working families" does not speak to me personally. I think one of the reasons for the decline in voter turnout is that society has not caught up to these realities, and as a result people are becoming disengaged. So language around "working families" or the "middle class" or "hard-working Canadians" doesn't do it for me. Language around "the kitchen table versus the boardoom table" or "a green and prosperous Canada where nobody is left behind (from the 2004 campaign)" is much better.

Why we on the left should never use the term "middle class:"

Ok-- I can go home and do something else-- at least one person sees there is a problem with this.

My fustration is not that many people see things through this classist lens but that this is how people are seeing things here-- a place inclusive, progressive but apparently more partisan than either, as that is the only explanation I can imagine for why this is such an illusive recognition.

Thanks Aristotle, you have no idea how that made my day. I did not want to be alone on this, of all things in of all places.

Yes it is partly the urban/rural but we have Walmart greeters in Burnaby as well.  But when I say work at Tim's I mean the youth stuck in dead end jobs not knowing how they will pay the rent at the end of the month when their hours were cut for asking for a day off. I am not talking about seniors supplementing their pensions.  Hell if the youth had something to supplement maybe they could live on a McJob too.

The new Mayor of Calgary is a good example of how to speak to urban youth. If the NDP is too have any chance of ever forming government they must win a majority of the urban ridings, its simple mathematics. I do not believe that the demographic that can achieve that for them is enamored of the term middle class.  To me its very old school in a bad way.  

Lets all settle down. Sean and I were at each others throats not long ago for no good reason but I like it better when we discuss things instead of fighting and I'll bet the people who merely watch and read would agree.

Yes the specter of seeing your "boomer" parents impoverished  and reduced to working at a Walmart's regional centre and yourself working in a dead end Tim's job in the city is the reality I am talking about.  And as Sean pointed out middle class as a term certainly excludes all our citizens living with disabilities. As a society we need to be inclusive with our language and as a party the NDP needs better writers.

What ever happened to "working families"? I agree with Sean's point that the language should be more inclusive than "middle class". 

I also think that Layton has a lot to proud of from his days as a city councillor. 

What about "Canadians"?

ottawaobserver, it's highly unlikely that a Liberal plant would admit that "nobody has taken a principled stand for a long time." There are plenty here who question the NDP's committment to social change, and neither those here nor this new babbler deserve your personal attacks an accusations. Either respond to her argument or go back to fawning over Jack's latest display of integrity. And that goes for everyone.

Otherwise, welcome to babble, Bella.Freeborn.

You are such a hypocrit.  When you post as a regular poster you are entitled to be one.  When you post as a moderator you are not.

Welcome aboard, Bella!

I still don't get teh emphasis on middle class. It is not an inclusive term by any definition and that was the point I raised. I can't help but feel that this is a distraction from that. The poorest in our society might wish to be middle class but they certainly do not consider their challenges to be the challenges of the middle class which is the comment that got all this rolling. Seems the distraction has more momentum than the initial concern about classist non-inclusive language for defining a party priority and the secondary concern that such classist and non-inclusive language is not what motives the so-called middle class NDP voter. They are motivated most by social justice and principle, I believe and at least this one is turned off by any suggestion of a failure to remember inclusivity in defining party principles and goals.

No, not the middle class demographic, but rather the demographic who self-identify as middle class.  There is a difference.  I realize there are some on this list who think it is our job to explain condescendingly to the poor benighted worker that s/he really is working class, not middle class, and should therefore describe themselves as such.  I suggest they go try out that tactic on a few doorsteps and tell me how many teeth they have left when they come home.

In the meantime, if the construction labourer or the steelworker or the school custodian want to call themselves middle class, I can't be bothered to "correct" them.

Tell you what, Kropotkin, here is my experience of the more dogmatic elements on the left - including a significant number of babblers:  There is a lot of condescension.  Seriously.

I actually deal with quite a few working class people every day.  Few of them would self-identify as working class.  Most would self-identify as middle class.

For some on the left, apparently this is a problem to be fixed.  That view seems to me . . . oh, what's the word? . . . condescending.

My experience of working class people is that, in general, they don't like to be treated with condescension - and that some will be very forceful in expressing that dislike.

Now, perhaps I am an "arrogant asshole" and perhaps I should go "fuck [my]self."

Or perhaps the three fingers pointing back at your own good self tell a truer tale that the one finger you're pointing at me.

And BTW, when you and your "party" (whatever tiny conglomeration of purists and true-believers that may be) manages to lose an election with 37% of the vote, then maybe I'll bother listening to your electoral expertise.  The Saskatchewan NDP has some serious issues to work on.  I have yet to see any evidence that you provide us with any useful insight.

Malcom if you are referring to me, please read more carefully. That was a strawman argument and I called the poster on it several times. There is no excuse to keep riding that very dead horse.

I never defined any working person as being middle class (or not). I did point out that it was beyond a stretch to assume that EVERYONE identified themselves as middle class which is what we have to do in order to define Layton's Statement "the challenges of the middle class" as inclusive. I am fascinated by the grotesque contortions of logic being made here to try to dispute my contention that the "challenges of the middle class" is not inclusive.

I was told those people, who work at Tims identify as middle class (even though I did not bring them up at all). I added that there are people who do not call themselves middle class-- be they unemployed, or disabled, or homeless etc. When I could not afford to see a dentist, put food on the table or pay for basic necessities I can say, I never at that time considered myself middle class. I don't think my kind became extinct when my personal situation improved. I also do not consider the situation I was in to be unique.

Certainly those who aspire to middle class do not necessarily consider themselves as currently facing "middle class challenges" but in fact are facing the challenges of aspiring to middle class and want some attention to those as well. The question of aspiration is irrelevant-- another straw man.

But then I was told that no, pretty much everyone aspires to middle class and to aspire to means to self identify as (using some logic I can't follow). I did say to define people by class is unacceptable among progressives and that middle certainly implies something below-- so whomever is framing that statement is assuming we need to pay more attention to those who are middle than those above (fine) and those below (not fine). I don't much care who we are excluding "middle" implies we are excluding some people below and that message is clear and offensive from the NDP.

So, who on earth here actually wants to make the claim that everyone is middle class? -- that there are no persons excluded by a "middle class challenges" priority? Or are we just going to keep fighting against the things that have never been said and accuse me of being condescending and lecturing based on words I never, ever said?

Then we have the almost humerous logic that I did not include everyone as middle class and therefore it is me being not inclusive.

I am annoyed at the tactic of ignoring what a person is saying in order to argue with great passion against what they never said. That tactic is one of giving the self pleasure rather than engaging in what the other person is saying.

So...

Do we or do we not think that the "challenges of the middle class" are inclusive?

The challenges you face reflect where you think you are now not your aspirations. Do we really think that everyone thinks they are already middle class?

Next question, if we assume that by saying middle class challenges we are leaving out people facing challenges that perhaps are even greater like where to sleep tonight, do we care about those people?

Next question, do middle class NDP voters care about those people?

I think the answers are:

No, not everyone thinks they are currently facing "middle class challenges";

We are leaving out people we care about;

The so-called middle class NDP voter cares about and is motivated by those other people.

This has nothing to do with me lecturing anyone about how they identify. I can be accused of lecturing people who claim to be progressive about the need to be inclusive and not forget the most vulnerable. I can live with that.

Call me whatever you want but please connect it with something I have actually said.

Malcom let me be clearer if it helps-- there are people in this country worse off than the lowest paid worker. I am not talking about middle class and I am not talking about working class a term you entered in to the conversation. Those people, traditionally the NDP claimed to champion as well as workers. This is not just a worker's party.

I am glad that you think that "dealing with" the working class is your contribution although the very framing of that sounded quite snobbish to me. Still, we are trying to talk about people who are unemployed, sick, homeless, elderly etc. Are you trying to tell me that all of those people are covered by a priority of middle class challenges?

Please tell me you are not senior in the NDP because I don't really want to go political party shopping right now and I remain confident that this is a significant communications mistake not the thinking of most NDPers. I am a little shocked that other NDPers here are not coming in to this to defend the party as more inclusive than the statement and to say that statement does not reflect their priorities and values.

Malcolm and kropotkin, knock it off. Fercrissakes.

I work at a trade school.  Part of what I do is to question our perceptions about the meaning of language.  When I ask what "working class" means, I usually get a positive response.  Some identify as working class, some as middle class.  Some equate working class with "lower class," but not many.

Then I get to haul out Raymond Williams and tell them that the term "working class" originated as a source of pride among the "industrious classes" who were those of their time who would git 'er done, as opposed to the idle classes who lived off their labour.

...does what?

And what the hell is "whinging"?

We whine in Canada.

Cute how you zero in and focus on a small part of my post that had very little relevance other than to retort some anger back to you and then you ignore everything else. Distract, evade, obfuscate -- you don't think that this is easily seen through? Even cuter to acuse me of doing what you have done throughout the thread -- argue against what is not there.

How about coming back and addressing the substantive parts of my post--

And to be clear-- yes it still looks like your relationship with "these people" as you call them is coming across as name dropping rather than understanding especially as you continue to refuse to acknowledge that I was not just talking about working people as I have said over and over and you ignore over and over. Now why don't you move on to find a typo in my post since you seem determined to focus on everything but the main points being raised?

And frankly I do not put any weight in to the experiences and insights of a person who thinks everyone who works considers themselves as middle class and considers their challenges to be middle class challenges.

How about we think of examples of middle class challenges:

How to buy a house in an unaffordable market;

How to manage without a pension for tomorrow;

How to care for ill relatives;

How to deal with increasing costs of necessities;

how to pay for higher education for their kids.

How about we think of examples of challenges people who cannot aspire to middle class consider:

How to make the rent next month (or find a place they can pay rent for);

How to stop the phone from being cut off;

How to stop the pain in the jaw without just pulling the tooth;

How to get a job;

How to get to the job;

How to put food on the table or whether it is better to try to pay the rent this month;

How to manage without a pension TODAY;

How to manage the people banging down the door asking for money;

How to put clothes on the backs of their kids;

How to pay for this prescription or decide what to do without to get it or how bad it will be not to fill it;

Yes these are all challenges but these are not the same challenges. And if you can't see the difference between the lists please don't go after picking one here or there that might be shared-- there are themes. One is long-term security which is the theme of the middle class and the other is day to day survival which is the theme of those who have less than the middle class.

The middle class, includes many we understand only one or two lost pay cheques from no longer being middle class but those one or two pay cheques are hugely significant for those without them.

To use my personal experience. I know the difference between my life today when I can use Visa to pay a bill that I don't have enough money for and know the lights won't get cut off and that I definitely have the rent covered for next month. It is an entirely different world-- one that you seem to express no knowledge about even if you know it in theory. And I remember the struggles when I had no such "comfort." Today I am much better off even though more than half my income goes to housing and I live in the very cheapest townhouse in the city.

My political conviction is based on this. The understanding that I am struggling with what I have but am light years from where I was and want to never forget those who live today as I lived only ten years ago. I put my tongue in to the corners of my mouth where I feel the teeth missing that were lost only because I could not afford a filling and understand that you know nothing about what you are talking about. I know as I struggle to make sure I can pay for the crown for a tooth, that at least I have basic dental insurance that I live a different life from when I could not fill a cavity. If you ever experienced poverty, it seems you have forgotten what it is like.

Further this middle class first thing is not a minor idea-- this is the idea of setting taxpayers against those who have no income. It is a conservative ideological conspiracy that I will not have the NDP fall in to without at least my personal one-person complaint.

Yes, the middle class suffers but no, they are not the only ones and any time they are mentioned as an objective for our attention, so too should the people worse off than them (us) otherwise we encourage the greatest political scandal of our time where the middle class is set upon the poor for the few resources left on the table after the wealthiest have indulged themselves. It is this Mike Harris-inspired appeal to the middle class that they are the ones paying for the excess of welfare etc. that we fall in to when we embrace this garbage. The NDP should never, ever draw lines between the poor and the middle class by any definition and must include BOTH in every statement of interest, sympathy or desired policy direction.

And no again, this is not trivial. This is who we are.

Okay Malcolm I cans still work with others after a good argument.  I think the language is not helpful and it is sloppy and should not be showing up in anything.  It is bad writing.  Do you get my point now? I have been an organizer in many elections and have only ever worked for one party.  Whoever wrote hopefully will give their head a shake and do better next time.

The reason you ticked me off is because I think tired old messaging is not what the party needs to make significant breakthroughs in urban areas. I was in Saskatoon at the Labour Day Picnic and I don't believe for a minute using terms like middle class would appeal to the neighbourhood people who attended. Especially in the phrase; "And to replace it with New Democrat leadership that cares about the challenges that middle-class families face right now."  

Tell that the people in the park who  were there not for the rah rah union speeches but for the hot dogs and see how impressed they are with your language.  The NDP needs a consistent message and I keep hoping it will be directed at more than the challenges of the middle class.  Imagine if you got the people from the neighbourhoods around the park to come out to vote in the percentages that farmers from outside the city do?  That what I am talking about.

Sean, I not only agree with this, but I find it an inspirational statement. I also suspect that Malcolm agrees with it, but once battle lines are drawn people find it difficult to back down. In another thread, I tried to intervene when Malcolm was condemning those who use the "working class" terminology, but to no effect. I don't know why this issue of what class people call themselves is so important to him, but in my humble opinion it seems to blind him to the content of what his perceived opponents are proposing. I suggest you try to get some emotional distance from this debate. It isn't that important.

Michael, at no point in my life have I EVER condemned those who use the terminology "working class."  What I have done is criticized those who seemingly insist that it is the only legitimate terminology and that any references to that particular demographic must necessarily address them with that terminology.

Kropotkin, we are absolutely agreed that stale talking points will get us nowhere.

Sean your hypocrisy is really quite stunning.  Your most recent post is a tissue of distraction, evasion and obfuscation, laced with a large dose of lying and slander. You really do need to grow up.

Alternatively, you could take up Kropotkin's (since withdrawn) suggestion in post #76.

Malcolm, once more your response to me is entirely content free other than the personal attack already responded to.

And quite an attack it was given that you still will not touch the substance of the discussion or identify what you think I am lying about.

The most charitable way I could receive your post would be to take it that you are aware of what I am saying but do not care about those issues and are thus blinded from the point.

It is okay not to care about what another person cares about but that does not make them a liar. I called you a liar because you kept arguing things I was not saying. As insulting as that may have been I substantiated it which you have not. I realize we are not to call people names here. Sometimes I think people get away with it-- in those cases the difference is usually they at least take the effort to explain what justifies the name calling and sometimes there has been enough of that on both sides.

A second somewhat charitable interpretation is that somewhere you misread something I wrote and have relied on it ever since. If that is possible then please go back and reread from an objective point of view. I find it mystifying that you cannot see my objection even if it is not one you consider important to you.

As for accusing me of slander, a legal term, I'd be more than willing to identify myself to you so that you can sue me-- I think you would find that somewhat disappointing and costly.

Finally, Malcolm, you seem to think that I have some reason to slander you etc. Since my only contact with you that I am aware of has been in this thread and I don't know who you are, that seems unlikely. Since you came in swinging with this comment you might have a source for our conflict there:

"I realize there are some on this list who think it is our job to explain condescendingly to the poor benighted worker that s/he really is working class, not middle class, and should therefore describe themselves as such. I suggest they go try out that tactic on a few doorsteps and tell me how many teeth they have left when they come home.

Or more to the point-- we should be avoiding classist language and when we want to refer to people's circumstance we can use terms like "middle income" rather than "middle class"

I suspect a lot of people with lower incomes have less trouble hearing terms like "lower income" than "lower class"

For myself, I tend to receive the word "class" as referencing income and when I start a conversation in that area I use the term income. Here I was complaining about a term already referenced as class.

It seems strange in this thread that when I said there are people who do not identify or feel they fit in to terms like middle class, some thought I was calling others as "working class" or something else. The sole point was that "middle class" is not inclusive and is in fact offensive to some.

So to answer the question what they could have said is that the "NDP will have as it priority the challenges of those in middle and lower income families." Now perhaps they can test that but I think that is the best representation of what we are looking for and it does not exclude anyone but the very well off.

Now Remind-- who here said they worked/fought or pulled themselves up from the bootstraps to become middle class? I said that I was better off than I was ten years ago but I did not attribute that to anything I did. In fact I caught a lucky break. And I never did subscribe or identify myself as working class-- because I reject such notions. I certainly did move from lower income to what is  considered middle income and have faced the very different set of challenges of both income levels.

Perhaps you are speaking of someone else? Otherwise there is a world of distinction in your complaint between someone who says that life sucked and now it doesn't as much but I remember, and someone saying that they orchestrated that transition and therefore so should/can everyone else. The difference is quite insulting so I want to think you are speaking about someone other than me since I am careful to never, ever claim personal responsibility for my better fortunes. I happen to be a person well in touch with both the concept of randomness and the concept of public good. I don't think anyone mentioned "boot straps" before you did.

Another reason to avoid labels that end in class is the very offensive but popular consideration of "cultural capital" which can mean anything from the good fortune of having parents who were educated and spoke well to extremely classist notions that are often tinged with prejudice and bigotry. Mid-high-and lower income as terms are much more objective and less judgmental. I would prefer if the NDP wants to make lines that these are the lines they draw avoiding concepts of class altogether.

Closing for length.